I mean,, I could see them being demanding if they ouput with the higher end hardware at a much greater quality, but looking at PS4P shots and then native 4k that requries a GTX 1080, I dunno, there isn't massive night or day differences right there and to me that's a waste of asking me for nearly half a grand for such a card. It would be well worth it if it made things look night and day. I'm just finding it not all that logical to believe that it's fair to ask more and more from me, yet give me less and less in terms of returns with hardware. That and I'm seeing people with 1080's and i7's having quite the issues with some AAA and indie titles out there, that also puts a negative light onto the high asking price, especially when it can't delivery all that well.

59 old sega classic games for $14 USD for steam if anyone wants them

https://www.bundlestars.com/en/bundle/sega-megadrive-and-genesis-classics-bundle
+ Discount Code: BLACKFRIDAY11

Comparing a PC and PS4Pro at 4K isn't a fair comparison. The PC has to run the game at that res while the Pro "cheats". That's why the PC version will look less blurry and more crisp.

But, and I have to be honest, when reviews post pics comparing how the game looks at the different graphical settings (usually low, mid, high & ultra), I have a hard time finding differences between the last two settings.

Most of the time it just seems to run worse for the sake of it.

Nice selection of games. Too bad I already have some of them.

Yeah but even with that cheating, it's still showing that the asking price is that bit much more. Even when you do a side by side 1080, all you're getting is a tiny bit better shadows, a bit less of a blurry look, hardly any massive stand out differences that make the PC version look like a next gen game compared to the current gen evrsions. I know we're getting diminishing returns, but asking me for more and more for a GPU is getting to be too much, not if I'm not getting a massive heap out of the deal.

The thing that is mainly bothering me, is that Nvidia for example is asking for around £700 for that 1080, yet it's not managing 4k 60fps for a lot of games today and it's not even eating 1080p games for breakfast across the board. Why should I spend more and more when I'm not egtting my money's worth?, I'm not the kind fo chap that would settle for lwoer end cards, what I want is what I've been wanting for a few eyars now, asking price and output being the fair trade, as in high end delievring high end results, but we're not getting it all that well, we're getting more higher price points and not the same level of returns and that is something that irks me to no end.

I'm wanting to wonder what Volta will be like, but I'm not holding out on high hopes due to how the 900 and 1000 series are currently playing out. I'm expecting another set of even more expensive cards that won't eat all those games for breakfast.

Without reading you guy's previous posts. You guys do know that the ps4 pro doesn't checkboard render at max settings right? From virtually all the games compared by digital foundry, the pro checkerboard renders mostly at the base ps4's settings and not pc max settings and it sticks with the base ps4 pro's fps and sometimes even lower.

DF said that Rise of Tomb Raider for example is the most optimized ps4 pro game out there atm. With its enriched mode at 1080p native, the settings get very close to pc's max (very high) at 30fps. Meanwhile, a 1060 can run it at 70fps at 1080p at pc max (very high). Ps4 Pro's high framerate mode goes from 40-60fps but that uses the base ps4's settings to achieve that and in checkboarding mode, it also uses the base ps4's setting.

So if you lower the settings of say Rise of Tomb Raider to match base ps4's settings. I don't see why say a 1060 won't be able to render the games at 4k native... 

And that's surprising to whom again? People don't buy the PS4 Pro to get PC performance or visuals. People buy the Pro to sooth at least a bit of their eye cancer.

The people that are comparing the pro to a 1080 above my comment?

So after a slight work around with the visual downgrade on BF1, I took a screenshot of the game with all settings on Ultra:



http://www.dsogaming.com/news/battlefield-1-workaround-discovered-for-the-recent-pc-downgrade-ation-does-not-completely-fix-it/

The GPU is handling it fine and dandy thanks to the graph, it's the CPU that is having issues, but even then the game visually doesn't look or feel that demanding since 1. My 980 can manage it fine. 2. The visuals aren't even showing for any claim of it being demanding. Bear in mind there are still a lot more buildings int he game that cannot be completely destroyed, nor any massive buildings that can be toppled like in BC2 and BF3.

It is very odd that your CPU is having issues considering it is an i5 since according to the benchmarks, even i3 can run BF1 very well.

Have you checked whether or not is in a background process that might be taking up CPU cycles?